How useful is it?
Ask a better question for one. Very vague.
It powers the entire API we use internally to manage our three locations of colo where we have racks of physical hardware. It's what powers a lot of the info that is used for provisioning and cuts the process for deploying new hardware from a multi step document to clicking "provision" and waiting ~10 minutes.
>>62071445
>and waiting ~10 minutes
Is that because Django is doing background processing?
Honestly, I don't see the point of using python in high-availability, high-load scenarios.
You've got a fucking dev team, use a static page generator with apache/nginx or use something more efficient than fucking python for interactive content.
>>62071986
>static site generator
>interactive content
Hmm...
>>62071243
really useful if you need to work with data on the server. i'm using it atm for a webapp that provides clients with choropleth visualisations.
Deployment can be a chore.
>>62071667
That's because the hardware is bootstrapping, running puppet, and doing installation of software.
pain in the ass
bloated
use flask instead unless you're making some huge """"webapp""""with a large team (in which case neck yourself)
>>62071243
Very
t. backend dev
How is django vs express for plain apis?
Django is fantastic but it's not nearly as relevant now as it once was. There's been a massive shift towards NodeJS and even GoLang. The included admin UI is nice but quite frankly in need of a rewrite that won't ever happen.
Personally I'd take Rails before I'd go with Django.
python garbage
Django Unusued
>>62073103
This. It's also very good for learning ORM stuff. It's fairly rigid though, so trying to get it to do something other than your classic static website is a bit of a chore.
>>62072555
Django is probably massive overkill.
Django vs Flask?
>>62074974
Only use something like Django if you think you need something that big and complicated to suit a big and complicated task.
For simpler needs, Flask is usually ideal.